Immanuel Kant believes that there is a moral problem to destroy something for no reason, but if having a reason then it would be okay. For example, if we cut down trees to build houses or buildings, then it would be okay, but if we destroyed the forest for no particular reason then that is when he thinks it is wrong. Rene Descartes thinks differently, he believes that humans are far more important than animals or nature. He thinks that animals are like machines and nature is mechanical. Both Kant and Descartes master nature, but I lean more towards Kant's belief. I think we should have reason to kill an animal or to tear down trees. We should have respect for nature.
Kohak states how most real ecologists are biocentric, and that they are no longer enchanted with the world. Biocentrism is the idea that life itself, life as such, any life, is a source of meaning and value. Schweitzer had said "I am a life which wants to live, and I live amid a community of life that wants to live." More people should think Schweitzer does. If we did then people would not be so disrespectful to nature, and people would not only think about themselves.
Paul Taylor had said "governing human treatment of the natural world is a rationally grounded set if and only if you can universalize it all to human beings. If we respect ourselves we should respect others, same goes with nature, if we respect ourselves then we should respect nature. Taylor proves a point here, if we care about ourselves then we should care about our surroundings.
No comments:
Post a Comment